Good Monday morning! Did you have a nice Earth Day? I ran the George Washington 10-miler, where by, coincidence or not, the medals and shirts were green.

You’re invited: If you’re in D.C., please join Axios at 8am tomorrow for a conversation on climate change and other topics with former Vice President Al Gore. Outside cameras and correspondents welcome. RSVP here.

Let's get to the news. My latest column reality checks President Trump's efforts to back coal and nuclear power. I'll offer a glimpse of that, and then Ben will take over to get you covered on the rest.

1 big thing: Trump’s misplaced power solution

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios

Trump is directing his administration to prop up financially struggling coal and nuclear power plants to ensure the electricity grid is resilient and reliable, but government data and most objective experts say there's no such problem.

Why it matters: America’s electricity fuel mix is undergoing significant change, which does present challenges. But Trump’s laser focus on coal and nuclear power — and companies seizing on that — distracts the debate from more substantive issues.

“There’s a lot going on in this space right now, and I think it’s unfortunate that it’s being drilled down into a political back and forth about propping up certain plants for certain companies. There are really complicated issues that have been under the surface for a while that are now getting serious attention.”

Driving the news: Trump repeatedly asks his advisers about how to revive the economically struggling coal and nuclear industries, according to officials following the deliberations.

Data and independent experts say there's little to no evidence of any resilience problem, particularly as it relates to coal and nuclear power plants. The Energy Department’s own data shows that power outages are due mostly to storms and downed power lines, not resource shortages, according to a report by research firm Rhodium Group.

What’s next: FERC is studying the issue of grid resilience and may issue proposals in the coming the months. “Maybe we’ll end up issuing something that’s very applicable, but not tied specifically to coal and nuclear,” Chatterjee said.

3. Possible meanings of Trump's OPEC tweet

Trump's decision Friday to burst like Kool-Aid Man into oil market debates has generated an influx of analyses about what motivated his comments.

ICYMI: Trump bashed OPEC in a tweet Friday over "artificially Very High" prices.

What they're saying...

Gasoline prices: One through-line in the analysts' reactions is that Trump could be seeking to preemptively steer and deflect consumer ire at rising gasoline prices heading into summer and election season.

A related thing is how when it comes to what's good for U.S. oil producers (higher oil prices) and what consumers want (low gasoline prices), Trump will choose the latter.

"[P]olitical mathematics tends to be of a first-order nature: high oil prices only directly benefit a small number of voters, but low gasoline prices directly benefit all voters," ClearView Energy Partners said in a note.

Iran: The tweet could be a further sign that Trump is preparing to end waivers of Iranian energy sanctions in May, which would remove some barrels from global market (there's debate about how much), thereby putting more upward pressure on prices.

"I think the market should take it as another indication that [reimposition of sanctions] is going to happen," Hedgeye Risk Management's Joe McMonigle said in video commentary on their site.

What's next: "The implications of it are going to be, I think, pressure on by Trump on OPEC, and Gulf producers in particular who are aligned with him on this Iran policy to increase production because of the disruption," he said.

"In fact, all nine coal plants now operating likely could make a profit by sequestering the CO2, or selling it off for [enhanced oil recovery]," he writes, adding that some plants could make as much as $3.7 billion over the 12-year life of the credit.

Of the 21 gas plants on the list, he sees profits from using the credit for 12 of them, though only 5 of them would see profits via direct sequestration.

Why it matters: The credits in the February federal spending deal represented a rare bipartisan effort on climate policy, but whether they're attractive enough for use in the power sector (as opposed to other industrial facilities) remains a question.

6. How health care affects the climate

Axios' David Nather asks and answers a good question...

The question: Wait, you say ... What does the health care industry have to do with climate change?

The answer: It turns out the U.S. health care system is the 7th largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world, according to the Commonwealth Fund — which is why the health care foundation says the system should do more to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The group points out that Kaiser Permanente has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 29% over the last 10 years, largely through the use of solar power and other environmental initiatives.

Outside the U.S., Britain’s National Health Service is another model — it’s working on cutting its emissions, too.

The catch: The health care industry is diverse and is rarely on the same page on anything, let alone an issue that’s not directly related to health care. But the industry should consider climate change a health care issue, according to Commonwealth — because events like extreme heat and cold, as well as the weather disasters we’re seeing, “take a major toll on health.”

Why it matters: Tesla has been going through a rough patch, so rave reviews from a cultural icon probably can't hurt. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has called West an inspiration, retweeted a couple of West's new comments.

The bottom line:Per Bloomberg, "Kanye West and Elon Musk’s bromance is hitting an all-time high."